The authors study the effects on work of additive manufacturing (AM), an emerging technology that may replace significant segments of traditional manufacturing (TM). Compared to TM, AM is more integrated and offers greater flexibility in design, materials, and customizability; thus, it should entail more demanding tasks and higher skill levels. The authors analyze vacancies for AM and TM workers, focusing on plants that posted vacancies in both technologies to control for factors that may affect the content of job postings. Findings show that AM jobs are more complex (with more non-routine analytic and less routine cognitive content) in comparison to TM jobs, and AM jobs require more high-level technical skills and more reasoning skills. The relative differences are larger for lower-skill workers (operators) than for high-skill workers (engineers). The authors conclude that AM is an upskilling technology that is skill biased in favor of low-skill workers and therefore reduces the skill gap.
AcemogluDaronRestrepoPascual. 2019. Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives33(2): 3–30.
3.
AkçomakI. SemihBorghansLexTer WeelBas. 2011. Measuring and interpreting trends in the division of labour in the Netherlands. De Economist159(4): 435–82.
4.
AtalayEnghinPhongthiengthamPhaiSoteloSebastianTannenbaumDaniel. 2020. The evolution of work in the United States. AEJ: Applied Economics12(2): 1–34.
5.
AutorDavid. 2013. The task approach to labor markets: An overview. Journal of Labor Market Research46: 185–95.
6.
AutorDavidLevyFrankMurnaneRichard. 2003. The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. Quarterly Journal of Economics118(4): 1279–333.
7.
BehaghelLucCaroliEveWalkowiakEmmanuelle. 2012. Information and communication technologies and skill upgrading: The role of internal vs external labour markets. Oxford Economic Papers64(3): 490–517.
8.
Ben-NerAvnerKongFanminLluisStéphanie. 2012. Uncertainty, task environment, and organization design: An empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization82(1): 281–313.
9.
Ben-NerAvnerSiemsenEnno. 2017. Decentralization and localization of production: The organizational and economic consequences of additive manufacturing (3D Printing). California Management Review59(2): 5–23.
10.
Ben-NerAvnerUrtasunAinhoa. 2013. Computerization and skill bifurcation: The role of task complexity in creating skill gains and losses. ILR Review66(1): 225–67.
11.
BloomNicholasVan ReenenJohn. 2007. Measuring and explaining management practices across firms and countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics122(4): 1351–408.
12.
BorghansLexter WeelBas. 2006. The division of labour, worker organisation, and technological change. Economic Journal116(509): F45–F72.
13.
BorghansLexter WeelBasWeinbergBruce A.2014. People skills and the labor-market outcomes of underrepresented groups. ILR Review67(2): 287–334.
14.
BorjasGeorgeFreemanRichard. 2019. From immigrants to robots: The changing locus of substitutes for workers. RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences5(5): 22–42.
15.
BörnerKatyScrivnerOlgaGallantMikeMaShutianLiuXiaozhongChewningKeithWuLingfeiEvansJames A.2018. Skill discrepancies between research, education, and jobs reveal the critical need to supply soft skills for the data economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(50): 12630–37.
16.
BrenčičVeraNorrisJohn B.2009. Employers’ online search: An empirical analysis. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society48(4): 684–709.
17.
BresnahanTimothyBrynjolfssonErikHittLorin. 2002. Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics117(1): 339–76.
18.
CaroliEveVan ReenenJohn. 2001. Skill-biased organizational change? Evidence from a panel of British and French establishments. Quarterly Journal of Economics116(4): 1449–92.
19.
DemingDavid J.KahnLisa B.2018. Skill requirements across firms and labor markets: Evidence from job postings for professionals. Journal of Labor Economics36(S1): S337–69.
20.
DemingDavid J.NorayKadeem. 2020. Earnings dynamics, changing job skills, and STEM careers. Quarterly Journal of Economics135(4): 1965–2005.
21.
DixonJayHongBryanWuLynn. 2021. The robot revolution: Managerial and employment consequences for firms. Management Science67(9): 5586–605.
22.
FeliceGiuliaLampertiFabioPiscitelloLucia. 2021. The employment implications of additive manufacturing. Industry and Innovation28: 333−36.
FriesikeSaschaFlathChristoph M.WirthMarcoThiesseFrédéric. 2018. Creativity and productivity in product design for additive manufacturing: Mechanisms and platform outcomes of remixing. Journal of Operations Management65(8): 735–52.
25.
HershbeinBrad J.KahnLisa B.2018. Do recessions accelerate routine-biased technological change? Evidence from vacancy postings. American Economic Review108(7): 1737–72.
26.
IacusStefano M.KingGaryPorroGiuseppe. 2012. Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis20(1): 1–24.
27.
JiangRuthKleerRobinPillerFrank T.2017. Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030. Technological Forecasting and Social Change117: 84–97.
28.
LindbeckAssarSnowerDennis. 2000. Multitask learning and the reorganization of work: From Tayloristic to holistic organization. Journal of Labor Economics18(3): 353–76.
29.
LucasRobert E.1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics22: 3–42.
30.
MacDuffieJohn P.1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Industrial and Labor Relations Review48(2): 197–221.
31.
McGuinnessSeamusPouliakasKonstantinosRedmondPaul. 2021. Skills-displacing technological change and its impact on jobs: Challenging technological alarmism?Economics of Innovation and New Technology30: 1–23.
32.
MichaelsGuyRauchFerdinandReddingStephen J.2019. Task specialization in US cities from 1880 to 2000. Journal of the European Economic Association17(3): 754–98.
33.
ModestinoAlicia SasserShoagDanielBallanceJoshua. 2016. Downskilling: Changes in employer skill requirements over the business cycle. Labour Economics41: 333−47.
34.
PerrowCharles. 1972. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. New York: Random House.
35.
PrendergastCanice. 2002. The tenuous trade-off between risk and incentives. Journal of Political Economy110(5): 1071–102.
36.
QuinlanHadenHartJohn. 2020. Additive manufacturing: Implications for technological change, workforce development, and the product lifecycle. MIT Center for Additive and Digital Advanced Production Technologies. Research Brief RB14-2020, November 24. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
37.
RehnbergMärthaPonteStefano. 2018. From smiling to smirking? 3D printing, upgrading and the restructuring of global value chains. Global Networks18(1): 57–80.
38.
SethiAndrea KrasaSethiSuresh Pal. 1990. Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems2(4): 289–328.
39.
Spitz-OenerAlexandra. 2006. Technical change, job tasks, and rising educational demands: Looking outside the wage structure. Journal of Labor Economics24(2): 235–70.
40.
StabellCharlesFjeldstadØystein. 1998. Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops, and networks. Strategic Management Journal19(5): 413–37.
41.
SyversonChad. 2011. What determines productivity?Journal of Economic Literature49(2): 326–65.
42.
ThompsonJames D.1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
43.
ZanoniSimoneAshourpourMiladBacchettiAndreaZanardiniMassimoPeronaMarco. 2019. Supply chain implications of additive manufacturing: A holistic synopsis through a collection of case studies. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology102(9): 3325–40.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
